U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–569 PDF 2014

PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Serial No. 113–152 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 18, 2014 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Katrina Lantos Swett, Ph.D., Chair, U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Thomas F. Farr, Ph.D., Director, Religious Freedom Project, Berkley 

Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Mr. Robert T. Smith, Managing Director and Regional Advisor for the United 

States, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

Mr. Emmanuel Ogebe, Special Counsel, Justice for Jos Project, Jubilee Campaign 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 52 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 54 

Mr. Tad Stahnke, Vice President, Research and Analysis, Human Rights 

First 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 70 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 73 

Ms. Sarah Sewall, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and 

Human Rights, U.S. Dept of State 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 96 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 100 

(1) 

PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM 

Thursday, September 18, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Gowdy, Woodall, 

Bentivolio, Tierney, Maloney, and Kelly. 

Staff Present: Brian Beattie, Professional Staff Member; Melissa 

Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Molly Boyl, Deputy General Counsel 

and Parliamentarian; John Cuaderas, Deputy Staff Director; Linda 

Good, Chief Clerk; Caroline Ingram, Counsel; Jim Lewis, Senior 

Policy Advisor; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff Director for Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Chief Counsel, Investigations; Laura L. 

Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Andrew Shult, Deputy Digital Director; 

Jaron Bourke, Minority Administrative Director; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press Secretary; Valerie Shen, Minority Counsel; 

Katie Teleky, Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kenny, Minority 

Counsel. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Committee will come to order. 

I’d like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight Committee 

mission statement. 

We exist to secure two fundamental principles, first, Americans 

have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them 

is well spent; and, second, Americans deserve efficient, effective 

government that works for them. 

Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right 

to know what they get from their government. 

We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to 

deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform 

to the federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee. 

I want to thank everybody for attending today and particularly 

our witnesses that we’re about to hear from. 

The title of the hearing is ‘‘Protecting International Religious 

Freedom.’’ I want to welcome Ranking Member Tierney and members of the subcommittee and those of you that are here in the audience. 

2 

Religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is a fundamental human right. It is enshrined in the First Amendment of 

our Constitution. It is a right essential to our human existence and 

one that all mankind deserves. 

It is also a well-established tenet of international law, including 

both the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international 

treaty ratified by 156 nations, including the United States of America. 

Religious freedom has long been neglected as part of the U.S. 

human rights agenda. Congress passed the International Religious 

Freedom Act, creating new bureaucracies and policy tools to ensure 

religious freedom became a core objective of U.S. foreign policy. 

Now, regrettably, nearly 16 years after its passage, Congress’s 

intent in passing the International Religious Freedom Act is being 

thwarted by mandates within the act that are also being ignored. 

A few months after the hearing we held last June on this topic, 

the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom at 

the State Department resigned. Unfortunately, that position has 

remained vacant for nearly a year. 

But just recently the President nominated Rabbi David 

Saperstein to serve as the next Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. This is a step in the right direction. 

We hope that the United States Senate will confirm this person 

sooner rather than later. Once confirmed by the Senate, however, 

he must be given all the necessary tools and resources to succeed. 

A study released earlier this year by the Pew Research Center 

found that 76 percent of the world’s population lives in countries 

with high or very high levels of restriction on religion. Even more 

troubling, the number of countries with a high or very high level 

of social hostilities involving religion reached a 6-year peak in 

2012, with hostilities increasing in almost all major regions of the 

world aside from the Americas. 

Just last month in Nigeria, Boko Haram militants overran the 

church compound and the rectory of the St. Denis Parish. Militants 

are now using the former church compound as a base. 

Shortly before these events, Boko Haram carried out a series of 

bombings in the home of the predominantly Christian community. 

Their gunmen used IEDs and petrol bombs to destroy five churches. 

Sadly, events such as these have become all too common. Never 

has the time been clearer for the need to strengthen America’s religious freedom policy. 

I am hard-pressed to name any countries where the United 

States engagement on international religious freedom has made a 

measurable impact to lessen the persecution of religious minorities. 

Given U.S. national security interests in combating religious extremism and fostering stable democratic institutions, the importance of promoting religious freedom is clear. The administration’s 

pattern of marginalizing international religious freedom must end. 

We can certainly do better. 

It is my hope that our discussions here today will highlight the 

areas where improvement is necessary while offering recommendaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 Dec 10, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91569.TXT APRIL
3 

tions as we move forward to ensure that international religious 

freedom is at the forefront of American foreign policy. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses, but 

we are now going to hear from the ranking member and a friend 

who is also celebrating his birthday today. So I know we all join 

in wishing him a happy, happy birthday. 

I recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for your best wishes as well. It is the anniversary of my 39th 

birthday, which I continually have over and over and over again. 

So—and as a gift to all of you, I am going to waive the oral presentation on my remarks and ask unanimous consent to enter my remarks upon the record. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. All members will have 7 days to submit opening 

statements for the record. 

And we will now recognize our panel. 

Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett is the chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom and President and 

CEO of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights. 

Dr. Thomas F. Farr is the director of the Religious Freedom 

Project and the program on Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy at 

Georgetown’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs. 

Mr. Robert Smith is the managing director and regional advisor 

for the United States at the International Center for Law and Religious Studies at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham 

Young University. 

BYU happens to be my alma mater. Glad to have you here, sir. 

And Mr. Emmanuel Ogebe—did I pronounce that properly? He 

said close enough. My apologies—is special counsel to the Justice 

for Jos Project at the Jubilee Campaign. 

Appreciate you being here. 

And Mr. Tad Stahnke is the vice president for Research and 

Analysis at Human Rights First. 

We thank you all for being here and appreciate it. And consistent 

with committee practices and rules, all witnesses will be sworn before they testify. 

So if you would please rise and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. You may be seated. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate it if 

you would limit your verbal comments to 5 minutes. A full statement and additional comments, we would be happy to enter those 

into the record. 

But now we will recognize Dr. Lantos Swett for 5 minutes. 

4 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF KATRINA LANTOS SWETT, PH.D. 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Thank you, Congressman Chaffetz. 

And, of course, it is a pleasure to be with you as well, Congressman Tierney. More from my neck of the woods, New Hampshire, 

and someone who served with both my father and my husband in 

this body. So it is lovely to see you. 

And I do request that my written statement be submitted for the 

record. 

This hearing is very timely. Events since my June 2013 testimony before this subcommittee starkly make the point. If the U.S. 

doesn’t get religious freedom right, we won’t get U.S. foreign policy 

right. 

My written testimony reviews the International Religious Freedom Act, IRFA, over the past 15 years and USCIRF’s role in its 

implementation and offers recommendations. My focus today is on 

events that underscore the connections between religious freedom, 

U.S. foreign policy, and U.S. and global security. 

ISIL’s barbarism in Syria and Iraq is in the forefront of all of our 

minds. With its growing strength, occupation of broad swaths of 

land, brutal executions, and threats to bring its war to America 

and elsewhere, ISIL poses a chilling danger. 

But we should remember ISIL is not alone in perpetrating violence in these countries. USCIRF has highlighted the al-Assad regime’s killing of tens of thousands and displacing of millions while 

exacerbating sectarianism, resulting in severe religious freedom 

violations affecting all Syrians. 

And USCIRF long has identified the Iraqi Government’s failure 

to stem non-state actors’ egregious and growing violence against civilians, which increased rather than reduced Sunni-Shia tensions. 

ISIL’s recent extraordinary territorial gains in Northern Iraq 

poses an existential threat, especially to religious minorities, including Christians, Yazidis, Shabak, Kakai, and Turkmen, and religious and ethnic minorities in Syria, including Christians and 

Alawites. 

Less well known and less well recognized is ISIL’s brutality 

against both country’s Shia Muslims and dissenting Sunni Muslims. 

So what should the United States do? USCIRF has welcomed 

U.S. assistance to the displaced in Northern Iraq, and we strongly 

support additional assistance to meet dire needs. 

We also support raising the refugee resettlement ceiling and increasing the share of refugees from the region for Iraqis and Syrians vulnerable to persecution and expanding the existing priority 

categories that allow certain Iraqis direct access to the U.S. admissions program without UNHCR referral. 

While USCIRF cannot speak to the economic, political, and military aspects of any plan to confront ISIL, we encourage our government to weave into these plans the promotion of the freedom of religion and belief and protection of religious minorities. 

But the U.S. Government needs to weave religious freedom more 

broadly into its plans before crises erupt. ISIL isn’t the only nonVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 Dec 10, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91569.TXT APRIL
5 

state actor that persecutes. Just look at Boko Haram in Nigeria 

and al-Shabab in Somalia. 

Governments also play a repressive role in many countries, including Burma, China, Russia, Pakistan, and Vietnam. These violations often lead to instability and violence, thereby underscoring 

the importance of the U.S. using all the tools at its disposal, including IRFA. 

With growing violent religious extremism and continuing 

authoritarianism, the United States needs to energize and mainstream the promotion of religion or belief. 

The executive branch should reinvigorate its commitment to religious freedom by, number one, ensuring that high-level officials 

speak publicly about the importance of religious freedom and include concerns across U.S. engagements with countries, including 

in economic, political, and security discussions, to achieve a whole 

of government effort. 

We should mandate increased training for diplomats on the importance of religious freedom and expanding U.S. Government programming on religious freedom work on the ground. 

We should work in coalition with other nations to advance religious freedom, such as the contact group of governments focusing 

on international religious freedom that has recently been initiated 

by the Canadians. 

We need to annually designate countries of particular concern— 

and that is a term of art within the legislation—for particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and if administrations do not 

do this, Congress legislatively should require annual designations. 

We should ensure that countries of particular concern, or the 

CPC list, expands and contracts as conditions warrant so glaring 

omissions like Pakistan and Vietnam can be correctly designated. 

Congress has an important role to play in promoting religious 

freedom by amending IRFA, our authorizing legislation, to expand 

the CPC classification to allow us to designate countries where particularly severe religious freedom violations are occurring, but a 

government doesn’t exist or control its territory, such as in the 

Central African Republic, and amending IRFA to allow non-state 

actors also to be designated, those who perpetrate particularly severe religious freedom violations, such as ISIL, which, in the case 

of ISIL, they claim to be a state and, yet, under the terms of our 

statue, we really wouldn’t be able to address them directly. 

We would like to see Congress sponsor legislation that promotes 

freedom of religion or belief to give our government the tools and 

resources it needs and signals to foreign governments the importance of religious freedom in bilateral relations. 

We would love to see Congress hold more hearings such as this 

one in support of religious freedom to reinforce that our government must actively promote this freedom. 

Congress is uniquely situated to raise concerns about religious 

freedom during delegation trips abroad and supporting those advocating for change by meeting with civil society and prisoners. 

And, finally, we would like to encourage members of Congress to 

participate in the Defending Freedom’s Project, an effort of the 

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, USCIRF, and Amnesty, 

6 

through which members of Congress individually advocate for prisoners of conscience. 

We face an enormously challenging landscape abroad for freedom 

of religion and belief. We can seek constructive change by making 

religious freedom a central component of U.S. foreign policy, improving our use of existing tools and creating new ones for a rapidly changing environment. Never have the stakes been higher. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Swett follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 1 here 91569.001
8 


Insert offset folio 2 here 91569.002
9 


Insert offset folio 3 here 91569.003
10 


Insert offset folio 4 here 91569.004
11 


Insert offset folio 5 here 91569.005
12 


Insert offset folio 6 here 91569.006
13 


Insert offset folio 7 here 91569.007
14 


Insert offset folio 8 here 91569.008
15 


Insert offset folio 9 here 91569.009
16 


Insert offset folio 10 here 91569.010
17 


Insert offset folio 11 here 91569.011
18 


Insert offset folio 12 here 91569.012
19 


Insert offset folio 13 here 91569.013
20 


Insert offset folio 14 here 91569.014
21 


Insert offset folio 15 here 91569.015
22 


Insert offset folio 16 here 91569.016
23 


Insert offset folio 17 here 91569.017
24 


Insert offset folio 18 here 91569.018
25 


Insert offset folio 19 here 91569.019
26 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Dr. Farr. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FARR, PH.D. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to this important hearing. 

Let me begin by giving credit where credit is due, in the State 

Department. There are in the Department officials who care deeply 

about religious freedom and whohave worked hard to improve U.S. 

policy. In my prepared testimony I give some examples of their 

work. 

Unfortunately, that work is marginalized within the Department. 

Their efforts are ad hoc. None is part of an integrated strategy to 

advance religious freedom. Indeed, such a strategy has not existed 

for the almost 6 years of this President’s tenure, and it does not 

exist today. 

As a consequence, the United States has had virtually no impact 

on the global rise of religious persecution. We have also missed important opportunities to employ religious freedom policy as a 

means of undermining the development of violent religious extremism, encouraging economic growth, and helping struggling democracies to stabilize. 

The evidence for this stark assessment is compelling. I cannot, 

like the chairman, identify a single country in the world where the 

United States, under this administration, has advanced religious 

freedom or reduced religious persecution. 

I believe the President’s nominee for the position of Ambassadorat-Large, Rabbi David Saperstein, should be confirmed immediately. But when he steps into the job, the post of Ambassadorat-Large will have been vacant for almost a year, since the departure of the previous incumbent, and vacant for over half the tenure 

of this President. 

Compare the administration’s treatment of this position with another similar job, that of Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s 

Issues. Someone has been in that position for virtually the entire 

tenure of this administration. Why? Because women’s issues are a 

priority, as they should be. 

It is difficult to conclude that the religious freedom Ambassador 

or the issue he represents are perceived as important at the State 

Department. It is no surprise, then, that the Ambassador for Women’s Issues reports directly to the Secretary of State, but the Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom reports to a much lowerlevel official, many levels removed from the Secretary. 

You can be sure that this marginalization of the Ambassador and 

U.S. policy is not lost on America’s diplomats, nor is it lost on foreign governments and those who persecute on the basis of religion. 

Internationally, the status of religious freedom continues to decline. Increasing numbers of human beings are subjected to violent 

religious persecution either because of their religious beliefs and 

practices or, as in the case in the recent barbaric and cruel beheadings of British and American citizens, because of the religious beliefs and practices of their tormentors. 

As I see it, Mr. Chairman, there are two powerful reasons for a 

comprehensive American strategy to advance religious freedom. 

The first is a moral imperative. 

27 

Last year, at a conference in Rome, Iraqi Patriarch Louis Raphael Sako, a man now in the eye of the storm, said something that 

still haunts me. ‘‘If they kill us all,’’ he said, ‘‘will you do something 

then?’’ I believe we have a responsibility to that man and his flock 

and to the others of Iraq and Syria and elsewhere who are fending 

for their lives. 

But Patriarch Sako said something else that day. The title of his 

speech was ‘‘What happens to the Middle East if Christians flee?’’ 

The answer was two-fold. Terrible suffering for the Christians, but 

also increased instability and harm to the societies themselves. 

Here lies the second reason for a comprehensive U.S. strategy. 

Religious freedom isn’t simply a right not to be tortured or killed 

or the freedom to worship privately. It is a fundamental human 

right that has distinct and inevitable public dimensions. It is necessary, necessary not only for individual human flourishing, but for 

the success of any state, especially highly religious nations like 

those of the Middle East. 

Ample research has shown what common sense suggests. Democracies can’t consolidate without religious freedom. Economies can’t 

develop without religious freedom. And religious freedom can be a 

counter to violent religious extremism. 

For all these reasons, I call upon the President of the United 

States to issue a presidential policy directive on international religious freedom and American national security. 

This directive would mandate a coordinated U.S. religious freedom strategy. It would directly involve all U.S. foreign policy agencies under the leadership of the Ambassador-at-Large. It would direct mandatory training for American diplomats and other officials 

involved in carrying out the new strategy. 

I would note one additional rationale for involving religious freedom in our national security: Blood and treasure. The successful 

surge of 2007 in Iraq created an opportunity to convince the majority Shiite community that, if they failed to integrate Sunnis and 

other minorities into the political system, the new Iraqi state would 

fail. In short, they needed to move toward religious freedom if they 

were to succeed as a state that would be stable and free of religious 

violence and conflict as it has today. 

We didn’t do that, and the consequences have been catastrophic. 

Today ISIS poses a serious threat to the United States. Military action is now necessary to defeat ISIS, but integrating religious freedom into our future strategy can undermine the institutions and 

habits that give rise to Islamist terrorism and reduce the need for 

future military action. At a fraction of the cost and without loss of 

blood on the part of anyone, a diplomatic counterterrorism offensive could increase American national security. 

Let me end by quoting from Rabbi Saperstein’s testimony before 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said, ‘‘I will seek to 

engage every segment of the State Department and the rest of the 

U.S. Government to integrate religious freedom into our Nation’s 

stagecraft, counter terrorism, conflict stability efforts, economic development and human rights.’’ 

Precisely so, the Senate should confirm him immediately. 

Saperstein is a talented man, but he will not succeed if the PresiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 Dec 10, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91569.TXT APRIL
28 

dent, the Secretary of State, and the Congress don’t give him the 

tools to succeed. 

I end my testimony, Mr. Chairman, with five suggestions for this 

committee and the Congress to amend the International Religious 

Freedom Act which will help our religious freedom policy to succeed. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:] 

29 


Insert offset folio 20 here 91569.020
30 


Insert offset folio 21 here 91569.021
31 


Insert offset folio 22 here 91569.022
32 


Insert offset folio 23 here 91569.023
33 


Insert offset folio 24 here 91569.024
34 


Insert offset folio 25 here 91569.025
35 


Insert offset folio 26 here 91569.026
36 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. It is wonderful to be with you today. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss international religious freedom, and my aim is to discuss the ways that the U.S. can 

improve its religious freedom policy to make a meaningful difference in improving international religious freedom. I ask that my 

written testimony be submitted to the record. 

At the outset, let me indicate that I am conscious that this year’s 

hearing builds on testimony received by this subcommittee at a 

similar hearing last year. That testimony established that religious 

freedom throughout the world is getting worse, not better. 

And, unfortunately, initiatives under the International Religious 

Freedom Act, or IRFA, are not doing as much as could be done to 

reverse that trend. 

Dr. Farr and the chairman have both indicated today that they 

could not identify a single country whose religious freedom has improved as a result of U.S. religious freedom policy. That must 

change. 

My written testimony endorses nine concrete recommendations 

that were made last year, some of which have been repeated today. 

I’ve noted in my written testimony that, in each case, the act currently permits the suggested changes. 

My first recommendation is to urge this subcommittee to act on 

those recommendations from last year. My major additional recommendations focus on urging much greater emphasis on those aspects of IRFA that contemplate identifying and incentivizing better 

religious compliance through the use of positive measures authorized by the act. 

The first policy goal of the act is condemnation. The act specifically says that it shall be the policy goal of the United States to 

condemn violations of religious freedom. This policy goal 

undergirds the annual reporting requirements and the sanction regime that the act establishes. 

While it is no doubt important to retain those aspects of IRFA 

that hold egregious violators to account, this purpose has inevitably 

caused tension and concern in shaping U.S. foreign policy. The 

practical result has been that, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the State Department has failed to designate countries of particular concern, or CBCs, annually and then 

to impose sanctions as required by the act. In fact, they have—the 

State Department has designated CPCs in only 3 of the last 7 

years, with 2014 still pending. 

In fact, the subcommittee has also heard that discrete sanctions 

under the act have only been imposed on a single country in its entire 16-year history. All other sanctions have simply been doublecounted or waived. 

But with limited CPC designations and almost no actual motivating sanctions, it is—is it any wonder that U.S. policy has had 

sufficient—insufficient impact on the worldwide international religious freedom? 

37 

What I suggest is that the problem may not be entirely with 

State, but with the overemphasis on the condemnation goal in 

IRFA and the sanction regime it implements. In my view, IRFA 

should place much greater emphasis on identifying opportunities 

for making a meaningful difference. 

This can be done by first identifying the countries most open to 

religious freedom improvements and, second, by encouraging incentives and assistance to improve religious freedom. 

While sanctions are an important backstop for the worst offenders of religious freedom, this isn’t where many of the real opportunities lie. 

In addition to focus on countries of particular concern, we need 

to focus on countries of particular opportunity, as my colleague 

Cole Durham has called them. We need to do a much better job of 

identifying the latter so we can help them find ways to make concrete and significant progress in implementing religious freedom 

ideals. 

Fortunately, the annual effort to produce country reports on religious freedom provides an excellent vehicle for identifying countries 

of particular opportunity. 

Additionally, IRFA already contains authorization for providing 

positive incentives to encourage other countries to improve religious freedom. The act already authorizes State to pursue numerous positive incentives. These are described in greater detail in my 

full statement. 

Briefly, the State Department should, one, recognize and reward 

countries making important religious freedom progress; two, recognize meritorious or distinguished religious freedom service by State 

employees through performance pay and awards; three, link humanitarian, military, and other U.S. aid to religious freedom 

progress; four, link U.S. economic incentives to religious freedom 

progress; and, five, conduct country-specific consultations to tailor 

goals and incentives for different countries. 

Since authorization for these positive incentives already exist 

under IRFA, my strong recommendation is that Congress use its 

oversight authority to investigate the extent to which these positive 

incentives have already been used by State and to encourage State 

to implement them in the future. 

There is no doubt that many positive steps are being taken, but 

I would recommend that the State Department be urged to formulate a strategic plan for more systematic use of such positive measures. Ideas from some of the embassies which have developed the 

most effective positive measures should be shared systematically 

with other embassies around the world. 

In summary, instead of emphasizing name-and-shame tactics, 

IRFA should be reoriented to identify and incentivize improved performance through greater utilization of positive measures. 

I believe that this positive approach will reinvigorate U.S. policy 

on religious freedom and will help IRFA become a much more powerful force to help improve the lives of millions of persons who 

deeply desire religious freedom. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

38 


Insert offset folio 27 here 91569.027
39 


Insert offset folio 28 here 91569.028
40 


Insert offset folio 29 here 91569.029
41 


Insert offset folio 30 here 91569.030
42 


Insert offset folio 31 here 91569.031
43 


Insert offset folio 32 here 91569.032
44 


Insert offset folio 33 here 91569.033
45 


Insert offset folio 34 here 91569.034
46 


Insert offset folio 35 here 91569.035
47 


Insert offset folio 36 here 91569.036
48 


Insert offset folio 37 here 91569.037
49 


Insert offset folio 38 here 91569.038
50 


Insert offset folio 39 here 91569.039
51 


Insert offset folio 40 here 91569.040
52 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Ogebe. Did I—how do you pronounce your 

last name? 

Mr. OGEBE. Yes. It was the last. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. If you can turn on your microphone, that 

would be great. 

STATEMENT OF EMMANUEL OGEBE 

Mr. OGEBE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of 

the committee, thank you very much for allowing me to testify 

today. 

This hearing is a very timely hearing. As you may have heard 

in news, just yesterday Boko Haram bombed a school and killed 15 

people who were preparing to be teachers. 

Let me start with three sobering statistics. The first is that 

Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world today. The 

second is that more Christians have been killed this century than 

in previous centuries. And the third is that more Christians were 

killed in Northern Nigeria in the year 2012 than the rest of the 

world combined. 

Now, one of the things that Boko Haram has done was this time 

last year they used chainsaws to decapitate over 150 Christians 

when they mounted a fake roadblock on a highway. These are the 

kinds of atrocities that this group has engaged in even before they 

abducted 300 young girls from a boarding school in April. 

With regard to the U.S. Commission of International Religious 

Freedom, it is my thinking that they missed a golden opportunity 

to alert the world to the atrocities and the religious genocide that 

Boko Haram was conducting. 

And what happened was that the USCIRF in its annual report 

on Nigeria last year did not make a recommendation to the State 

Department for Boko Haram to be designated as a foreign terrorist 

organization. This, I think, would have been the moment that 

USCIRF would have lent its voice to a critical policy recognition of 

what this terrorist group was doing. 

I also want to mention the response of the State Department. 

The IRFA Ambassador at the time traveled to 27 countries in her 

29 months in office. And at the time when you had this horrendous 

anti-Christian genocide going on in Nigeria, she did not meet with 

Christian leaders in that country. 

And I say this to say that we have a good law, but if we have 

people aggressively implementing existing powers that they have, 

that there are some of these issues that would not need to be reformed. They are obviously clear issues that warrant reform, but 

the existing paths are being underutilized. 

I want to point out that the State Department has continued to 

downplay the persecution of Christians in Northern Nigeria, and 

this is a grave concern for us. There is nothing that ISIS has done 

in Iraq in the last two months that they have not done in Northern 

Nigeria in the last 3 years. 

Now, let me say that we are all shocked by what ISIS has done 

in beheading two American journalists, but Boko Haram has tried 

to do that several times. And just last week we heard for the first 

time the name of an American that Boko Haram attempted to kill. 

Her name is Vernice Guthrie. Until this day, the State Department 

53 

has not publicly admitted that Americans have been targeted by 

this horrific terror group. 

I think I want to quickly make the linkage here. The groups that 

terrorize people of other faiths in that country will ultimately want 

to set their sights on bigger targets, and that is why we see what 

is going on now, is that groups like ISIL and Boko Haram want 

to reach America and want to kill Americans. 

Let me point out that one of the concerns we have had with U.S. 

response is the effort to downplay the intent of these groups. It is 

what I call the ‘‘see no jihad, hear no jihad, say no jihad’’ strategy. 

And we heard in Iraq, as in Nigeria, ‘‘Oh, what you need to do 

is create a more inclusive government. Violent jihadist groups are 

not about inclusive governments. They are about exclusive governments. They want to rule exclusively by themselves. 

I want to take a moment to say that I honestly believe that we 

need to fund USCIRF better. I believe that USCIRF needs to use 

its powers more effectively. 

I want to submit my testimony for the record. But before I hand 

over, I do want to pay tribute to a young girl who was killed by 

Boko Haram. 

I conducted a 1-month investigation after we found out that Boko 

Haram had started using females as suicide bombers, and it was 

my sad duty this week to notify members of the Chibok community 

that Boko Haram that abducted about 300 Christian schoolgirls 

from their school in Northern Nigeria has used one of them and 

blew her up in a school and killed several people. 

As a tribute to this girl, I want to mention the words of a song 

that she is known for by people in her class. And what she said 

was, ‘‘We have come to the end of the world now. We have to stand 

firm and be strong in the Lord because we are now in a bad situation, and there’s milk and honey in the place where I am going. No 

matter the condition, I will not go back. The Lord is my refuge. We 

are now in a bad situation. We better turn to God now to enjoin 

him on the last day.’’ 

And Boko Haram strapped this girl with explosives. We do not 

know if she was aware what was on her body, but she was blown 

up and killed in Northern Nigeria a few weeks ago. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ogebe follows:] 

54 


Insert offset folio 41 here 91569.041
55 


Insert offset folio 42 here 91569.042
56 


Insert offset folio 43 here 91569.043
57 


Insert offset folio 44 here 91569.044
58 


Insert offset folio 45 here 91569.045
59 


Insert offset folio 46 here 91569.046
60 


Insert offset folio 47 here 91569.047
61 


Insert offset folio 48 here 91569.048
62 


Insert offset folio 49 here 91569.049
63 


Insert offset folio 50 here 91569.050
64 


Insert offset folio 51 here 91569.051
65 


Insert offset folio 52 here 91569.052
66 


Insert offset folio 53 here 91569.053
67 


Insert offset folio 54 here 91569.054
68 


Insert offset folio 55 here 91569.055
69 


Insert offset folio 56 here 91569.056
70 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Stahnke. 

STATEMENT OF TAD STAHNKE 

Mr. STAHNKE. Thank you, Mr Chairman, Mr. Tierney, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, international religious freedom. 

Religious freedom’s a cornerstone of secure and thriving societies. 

Denying religious freedom is associated with instability, rights 

abuses, and violent extremism. The rising tide of violence and religious intolerance and restrictions on religious freedom is clearly an 

ongoing threat to U.S. national security. 

The recent events in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Egypt all 

underscore the urgency of formulating U.S. national security policies that promote and protect religious freedom and related human 

rights as part of the strategy to secure U.S. national interests. 

In the last year, there’s been an alarming rise in deadly violence 

targeting religious communities, ISIS and Boko Haram seizing and 

holding territory, committing horrendous human rights abuses. 

It is also very troubling how effective these groups have been in 

using mass and social media to get out their message and to recruit 

followers. Burma, Pakistan, Egypt, all places where we continue to 

see way—too much in the way of violence targeting religious minorities. 

Not at the same scale of violence, but also troubling is growing 

anti-Semitic and other hate violence in Europe as neo-Fascist, antiSemitic political parties have gained electoral strength throughout 

the region, particularly in Hungary and in Greece. 

My written testimony covers these situations. Let me make three 

general points. 

First, although non-state actors perpetrate much of the violence, 

failures of governments play an enormous role. Governments often 

create or fail to confront the conditions that give rise to violence. 

There’s a direct link between ISIS success and the Iraqi Government failures on good governance and addressing the grievances of 

the Sunni population. 

Second, many of the situations we are discussing have deteriorated because of the failure of governments to adequately protect 

human rights and the rule of law and more effectively confront discrimination and hatred. 

Support for ISIS and Boko Haram has been fueled by human 

rights violations by the Iraqi and Nigerian security services and 

their paramilitary supporters. These aren’t rogue violations, but 

seemingly deliberate, abusive, and counterproductive 

counterterrorism and security policies. 

Third, the United States has invested a tremendous amount of 

money, prestige and, in some cases, blood in the success of these 

countries to become more stable, to move in a more democratic direction more tied to the rule of law. 

So the need is pressing. And what needs to be done? 

First of all, as several of us have said, the Senate should confirm 

Rabbi Saperstein to be the Ambassador-at-Large. It is the immediate step that should be taken. I urge you to—urge your colleagues in the Senate to do so. 

71 

Second, the United States needs country-specific strategies to 

better integrate the promotion of religious freedom and other 

human rights into its effort to confront each of these national security challenges. 

Developing and investing in these strategies is a way to prevent 

security situations in countries that could eventually deteriorate to 

the point where we would even contemplate U.S. military action. 

The elements of this type of strategy include promoting a more 

rights-respecting approach by foreign governments to 

counterterrorism; stopping U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar 

from funding religious extremism beyond their borders; where 

there’s political will, provide assistance to help countries better integrate the security services with members of religious minorities; 

and promote better law enforcement response to violence—impunity for any act of religiously motivated violence is a cancer that 

can spread out of control—countering extremist propaganda and 

hatred; and, also, assisting IDPs, refugees, and asylum seekers 

fleeing religious persecution. 

Now, in order to implement these strategies, the White House 

and the State Department needs to better integrate the Ambassador-at-Large into the work of national security, conflict prevention, counterterrorism, countering violent extremism, and democracy promotion. 

Dr. Farr and I saw the same line in Rabbi Saperstein’s testimony, and I will highlight that, too. It is extremely important. But 

how do you do that? And let me end with a couple of specific recommendations. 

There’s a new national security strategy in the works, and it 

should include a clear statement that it is U.S. policy to advance 

international religious freedom and related human rights as part 

of the strategy to promote stability in foreign countries and combat 

terrorism. 

Second, the President should create a permanent interagency 

policy committee on religion, human rights, and national security 

co-chaired by a deputy national security advisor and the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. Give it resources. Give it a mandate to coordinate policies across the agencies, as I think we have all been discussing. 

Regardless of where the IRFA Ambassador sits in the bureaucracy, the Secretary of State should ensure that the Ambassador has 

regular and consistent access to him, to senior State Departmentlevel meetings, and fully integrated into the broader policy discussions. 

Finally, Under Secretary Sewall, who I know is going to talk 

later, should create within her purview a unit that could be deployed to the field to assess the risk of systemic violence targeting 

religious communities and respond—make recommendations and 

respond using the tools that she has within her shop. 

And, finally, the President should send Vice President Biden to 

represent the United States at the upcoming high-level OSCE Berlin conference on anti-Semitism, and I am hoping that Congress 

also will send a high-level delegation to that important meeting. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

72 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Stahnke follows:] 

73 


Insert offset folio 57 here 91569.057
74 


Insert offset folio 58 here 91569.058
75 


Insert offset folio 59 here 91569.059
76 


Insert offset folio 60 here 91569.060
77 


Insert offset folio 61 here 91569.061
78 


Insert offset folio 62 here 91569.062
79 


Insert offset folio 63 here 91569.063
80 


Insert offset folio 64 here 91569.064
81 


Insert offset folio 65 here 91569.065
82 


Insert offset folio 66 here 91569.066
83 


Insert offset folio 67 here 91569.067
84 


Insert offset folio 68 here 91569.068
85 


Insert offset folio 69 here 91569.069
86 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank all of you for all your testimony. You 

have—your fuller remarks, if there are some, obviously will be entered into the record. 

I would also just ask that, if you have very specific recommendations or want to modify those at any time, please send those forward as we digest—we are not only the Oversight Committee, we 

are supposed to be the Government Reform Committee. And certainly there are things that the law can do to help catch up with 

what we are supposed to do. 

Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina who cares passionately about these issues, Mr. Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank 

all the panelists. 

I want to just single out the one that I know the best, Dr. Farr, 

who has done a lot, Chairman Chaffetz, to help me understand the 

issues, and our mutual friend, John Hutchinson from South Caroline. 

Dr. Farr, I just have one question. 

And then I want to yield my time to the gentleman from Utah 

who has worked so assiduously on this issue. 

You mention the Senate’s heretofore failure to confirm the Ambassador-at-Large. Among the mysteries of the world, a Senate confirmation process probably ranks in the top three, at least to me. 

So I don’t—I don’t know what the holdup would be. 

Is there—one of your panelists mentioned our colleagues in the 

Senate and—perhaps putting pressure on them, which traditionally 

does not work. What can we do? Is there a holdup that has been 

identified or is it just the normal Senate schedule? And I’ll let you 

answer that. 

And then, Mr. Chaffetz, I would give the rest of my time to you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you for that, Mr. Gowdy. 

Others on the panel may know better than I, but I understand 

that the committee was to vote on his nomination today. It may be 

happening as we speak. The problem is that the Senate is going 

to be in recess. 

So if there’s a way for the Senate to—which I know you have no 

control over—to confirm him before they go on recess, before the 

Congress does, it would be good, because he could get into—into 

the job. But I do think at this point it is a procedural matter rather 

than any opposition. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. 

If you were going to take this job on—you have all offered recommendations that you can do. But what, realistically, can that position actually do, given its status, given its placement? 

I know there are some recommendations on the elevation and 

who they report to, different committees that we can—but if you 

had an objective for this person in the first 100 days, the first 

three, what would that be? What would be on that person’s list? 

What can they realistically actually do and accomplish? 

And, again, I think you all know this. You have all stated it. We 

just haven’t seen the numbers and the meter move in the right direction. In fact, it is going in the wrong direction. 

Yes. 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Well, I will be happy to take a crack at that. 

87 

I think, to some degree, there needs to be an effort to change the 

culture at the State Department. For many years there was something that was known almost as—I think it was called the secularization thesis, that as societies became more modern, they would 

inevitably become more secular and that religion was not really a 

terribly relevant factor or would not continue to be a terribly relevant factor in the lives of large numbers of people around the 

world. And, if anything, the history of the last 25 years has undermined that—that now somewhat discredited secularization thesis. 

And I do think that Rabbi Saperstein will face a challenge of sort 

of confronting a culture at the State Department that has tended 

to sideline these concerns, has tended to view the business of State 

as being, of course, maintaining, to the extent possible, positive relations between the United States and other countries, and when 

there are problems, working at other levels and on other—on other 

areas of focus. 

And so I—you know, I think it is critically important that the 

next Ambassador-at-Large find a way to have that direct access to 

the Secretary and, indeed, to the President. You know, the terms 

of the statute say that the Ambassador-at-Large is the principal 

advisor to the President and the Secretary of State on matters relating to international religious freedom. 

We no longer need to make the case. The world is in flames. It 

is on fire with religious freedom atrocities, and those atrocities 

have direct and terrifying implications for our national security. 

So I would say try not to be co-opted by the highly bureaucratic 

nature of the State Department. Battle hard for that ability to, in 

fact, fulfill the statutory, you know, claim to be that principal advisor. 

And, finally, I would say—and I don’t underestimate the value 

of this. And I happened to be with Rabbi Saperstein yesterday at 

a powerful, wonderful event remembering and honoring Anne 

Frank, the remarkable young woman who died in the Holocaust, 

the Dutch woman. 

He spoke so powerfully, so eloquently, in such an inspiring fashion, and I do think that we should not underestimate the power 

and the ability of someone of great passion, great commitment, and 

great dedication to this issue to change the narrative and to—to 

draw more focus to it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

And my guess is you all have input on this. We can either come 

back to that or, again, submit it to the committee. 

We have a second panel, and we are going to also have a second 

series of votes. So we have got try to balance that time. 

And I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. 

Now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

One of the central tools of the International Religious Freedom 

Act is the designation of countries of particular concern, or CPCs, 

who are particularly severe violators of religious freedom. 

However, the CPC mechanism has not always been consistently—and I understand—used consistently. And I understand that 

the State Department has interpreted this statute to not require 

annual designations. 

88 

For example, the Bush Administration did not make any CPC 

designation after 2006, and the current administration has only 

made two designations to far. 

Dr. Lantos Swett, is that correct? 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Yes. And we—if you are going where I think 

you are going, we very much would encourage them to make annual CPC designations, as contemplated in the statute. 

Ms. KELLY. That is where I was going. 

And can you tell me why. 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Well, you know, we don’t want the CPC list 

to be a frozen sort of dead document that just sits on a shelf. The 

process of evaluating on an annual basis whether a country is progressing in the right direction, is regressing, is—in and of itself, it 

brings pressure to bear on those countries when they know that 

that process is dynamic. It also gives you a much more dynamic opportunity to recognize when progress has been made. 

The worst thing that can happen is to create a list, stick it on 

a shelf, and nobody thinks about it for 4 or 5 years. We want State 

thinking about religious freedom because it really matters to our 

national security and our foreign policy. So it is the dynamism and 

the annual process that brings attention to bear on the good guys 

and those making progress. 

Ms. KELLY. Now, the other issue seems to be disagreement on 

what countries should be designated between—you know, with the 

International Religious Freedom Act, the State Department, and 

the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. 

How does the Commission determine which countries are engaged in particularly severe violations? 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Well, it is a very detailed process involving 

a lot of research, drawing on information—testimony and information that we get from a wide variety of sources. 

Of course, to some degree, we rely on our significant State Department interlocutors in the various countries, religious communities, NGOs, outside organizations that do evaluations. We take 

trips to those countries to make our own independent assessments. 

I hope I am not going to sound too self-congratulatory, but I 

would say that the USCIRF CPC list is the gold standard. And I 

recognize we have the luxury of not having to consider the full 

range of concerns that our State Department has to deal with. 

So, you know, I think we need to cut them a little slack. They 

have to balance things we don’t at USCIRF. We have one focus, 

which is international religious freedom. 

But for that reason, I do think our list is the gold standard. I 

think, if a country makes it on to our recommended list, it has met 

the statutory requirements. And sometimes State can’t find their 

way to getting where we get to. But I would commend that people 

consider the USCIRF list to be a very, very good list. 

Ms. KELLY. What reasons have they given not to go along with 

your recommendations? 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Oh, that is a good question. 

You know, I don’t want to put words into anybody’s mouth; and, 

so, I want to be very circumspect in answering that. 

Certainly their formal responses would indicate that they are not 

sure that the—that the bar has been crossed in a statutory sense. 

89 

But I would give as an example Pakistan, which is a country that 

I think most people—looking at the statutory language, looking at 

the reality of, you know, over 100 people in prison, many of them 

on death row for violations of outrageous blasphemy codes. 

Look at the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan. 

Look at the threats and the murder of people like Shahbaz Bhatti, 

the only Christian member of the Pakistani Government before he 

was murdered and others would say this is a country that has severe religious freedom abuses going on and either perpetrated or 

tolerated or a situation of impunity by the government. 

Tom, I know you have something to add there. 

Mr. FARR. Well, now—sorry. I am sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt this—— 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Oh, no. 

Mr. FARR. I didn’t want to say something about the CPC. I wanted to just say a word about the issue of how the Ambassador could 

be effective, if I might. I will be very brief. 

My first recommendation to the committee, which was the first 

recommendation last year, is that the IRFA be amended to require 

the Ambassador-at-Large to report to the Secretary of State just as 

the Ambassador-at-Large for others, such as women’s issues, do. 

You could put the Pope in this position, Mr. Chairman, and buried in the bureaucracy as he is, he would not be effective. It is because of State Department understands this issue as a junior position. Foreign governments—it is not rocket science—understand it 

is not a priority. 

The Congress could make this happen. The State Department is 

not going to do it. They are not going to do it with, hopefully, Ambassador Saperstein. 

Ms. KELLY. Can I just ask one more? 

How effective have the CPC designations and resulting actions 

been in actually changing the behavior of the offending countries? 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Well, I don’t think I can be quite as self-congratulatory in response to that question. Part of the reason is, as 

has been mentioned by a number of us here on the panel, neither— 

you know, none of the administrations since the creation of IRFA 

have adequately utilized the tools that are at their disposal. 

When sanctions are imposed pursuant to a CPC designation, 

they are always what we call double-hatted. So there is no specific 

penalty associated to the designation as a CPC. 

Mr. Smith suggested that we also need to look for countries of 

particular opportunity. I think that is a great idea. I think there 

needs to be—I am a believer in shame and blame. You know, look. 

I am a Jewish mother. You know, I—daughter of Holocaust survivors. So we belive in the power of guilt. We really do. And it is 

a highly sophisticated art within that tradition, if I may say so 

with tongue firmly in cheek. 

But—so I do believe in shame and blame, but I don’t think it is 

enough by itself. So I think we need to look for positive opportunities. But I would say this. When it comes to the ineffectiveness of 

change as a result of CPC designations, there is a role for sanctions. 

And if I can quote the great Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton, I 

think he once said, speaking of Christianity, that it is not that it 

90 

has been tried and found wanting, but it has been found hard and 

not tried. And I think that that also sort of has some relevance to 

whether or not we could bring about more change if we had more 

robust and particular sanctions associated with CPC designations. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you for the time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I think Mr. Stahnke wanted to add something 

briefly, if we could, please. 

Mr. STAHNKE. Yes. Very briefly. 

I think it is hard to point to success stemming from CPC designation or actions that are taken. I would suggest take a different 

approach. Right? 

The administration is engaged on ISIS, on Boko Haram, on 

Burma. These countries are ones where Rabbi Saperstein, as Ambassador-at-Large, could be put at the table of the serious policy 

discussions. 

He could go there, and he could come back and lay out a strategy 

for how to reverse the conditions that are plaguing and producing 

these abuses. And I think that is something that is achievable in 

a short term where there is already action taking place. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

We are way over the—over the time. Let me go to Mr. Bentivolio. 

You will have a chance to come back here. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio, is now recognized. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for coming here today on this very important 

issue. 

America is waking up to the atrocities in the Middle East. I have 

spoken 13 times on the floor of Congress about religious freedom 

issues in the Middle East as well as China and other places of the 

world. 

And my office has been reviewing some of the standards, I think, 

that the State Department has for how they rate countries as far 

as the religious freedom. Are you familiar with that? And I think 

you talked about that earlier. Can you explain that in more detail? 

Anybody want to answer that question, what that rating system 

is all about in the State Department, how they rate countries based 

on religion freedoms? 

Mr. FARR. I don’t think they do that, sir. I think what they do 

is name the bad guys. That’s the Countries of Particular Concern 

list. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. So there is really no—— 

Mr. FARR. There is no ranking. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. —ranking, no matrix to use for how we—you 

know, countries that are promoting religious freedom versus not 

promoting or the opposite? 

Mr. FARR. The Pew Research Center produces an annual report 

that does, in effect, rank these countries and gives them scores. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. And the reason I am asking this is because, in 

order to promote religious freedom, you know, sometimes we ignore 

those atrocities taking place, and yet the United States Government will still write them a foreign-aid check for some reason or 

another, usually in the form of tanks and airplanes and AK–47s or 

similar. 

91 

So how do you feel about rating these countries based on their 

matrix of religious freedom and foreign aid? 

I notice, Mr. Smith, you have a list of—excuse me a minute— 

yeah, ‘‘As specified in the act, negative sanctions include,’’ but I 

don’t see not getting a check from the United States Government. 

Do you think that would have an effect one way or the other? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, of course it would. And, in fact, I am not sure 

if that was totally understood. My testimony is that it should be 

linked, that there should be a linkage between U.S. aid, military 

aid, and religious freedom, which is already recommended in the 

act. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. In the act. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. But we are not enforcing it. 

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. That is what you are telling me. 

Mr. SMITH. That is exactly right. 

And if I could just say, while the focus should be on countries 

of particular concern because of the horrendous religious freedom 

records that they have, most countries are not CPCs. And so my 

testimony is that we should also focus on those countries that are 

not the worst offenders because those are the ones that legitimately 

want to improve their records and are most susceptible to incentives and to persuasion. 

When we think of the CPC countries, where we are really talking 

about criminal activity and other forms of abuse, they are not very 

responsive. And that is why there is a problem. And if the goal of 

IRFA is to actually make a difference, we need to also focus on 

those countries most susceptible to positive incentives and persuasion. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Very good. 

So how do you think we should handle the present problem we 

have in the Middle East with the persecution of Christians, 

Coptics, and other minority religions? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is obviously a tremendous tragedy, and 

there has been a lot of discussion over the past couple of years 

about how it is increasing. 

What needs to be done, in my view, is there needs to be a strategy that is put into place by State. And it is not a matter of simply 

giving some speeches or even writing an effective report that explains the problem. There needs to be a strategy for success. And 

that includes the type of efforts that will be made, the linking of 

U.S. aid, U.S. incentives of various kinds—economic incentives can 

be linked to religious freedom—and identifying the people who are 

in charge of religious policy in those countries, getting to know 

them and trying to work with them. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Do you think there is any hope in restoring the 

homes in the communities that the Christians were forced to leave 

after living there for thousands of years? Do you think there is any 

chance of them ever going back with the present state of affairs? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, we have to always hope that that can be the 

case. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Hope. 

92 

Mr. SMITH. And it may take time, but quick action is needed now 

to prevent further erosion. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. What do you mean by ‘‘quick action’’? Can you 

be more detailed? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the strategy that I am referring to—— 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. A strategy. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. But you are not really outlining a specific strategy. And I don’t mean to attack you on this because there is a lot 

of people here in Washington that use that word, ‘‘strategy,’’ but I 

haven’t seen the details of that strategy. 

Did you want to add something? 

Excuse me. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. You bet. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Appreciate it. 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Just very specifically to your question about 

whether or not these persecuted communities that have fled could 

be resettled, we have had a number of briefings at USCIRF from 

representatives of those communities. And I can convey to you that 

what they said to us is: We cannot go back. After what happened 

to us, after the way we saw our neighbors, neighbors going back 

generation upon generation, either turn against us or fail to defend 

us in any meaningful way, we cannot rebuild our lives there. 

Which is why I think one thing we need to be prepared to do as 

a government is raise the refugee resettlement quotas for some of 

these horribly targeted communities in the region of, you know, 

Iraq, in particular, the area that ISIL has taken over in Iraq. 

So members of the communities are not feeling optimistic about 

the idea of their lives resuming there. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Just one more quick question? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We have a second panel, and we have the vote 

coming up. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

We will now recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 

Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

And I would like to welcome all of the panelists and particularly 

my good friend Dr. Lantos Swett, whom I first met as the daughter 

of my former colleague and the wife of my former colleague and a 

great candidate herself. 

So it is good to see you still working hard on issues, and wonderful to see you again. 

The International Religious Freedom Act is the main legislative 

vehicle through which Congress has authorized the administration 

to respond to gross violations of religious freedom. But in light of 

the sharp rise of religious persecution, we should stop and ask how 

well the act is equipped to deal with crises around the world and 

what changes Congress can make to do it better. 

And I would like Dr. Lantos Swett to answer that and elaborate 

on what you actually wrote about in your testimony and in your 

conclusion that IRFA’s tools are, quote, ‘‘almost irrelevant’’ in situations like Syria. 

93 

I would like to add that I went to the grave of Thomas Jefferson, 

and, if I recall, on his headstone is not ‘‘author of the Declaration 

of Independence,’’ not ‘‘President,’’ not this or that, but what he 

chose to put on his headstone was ‘‘the author of the Religious 

Freedom Act’’—a basic, basic belief in our country. And I really am 

very disturbed to see the persecution of religion around the world 

that we have seen particularly recently against Christians. 

So I look forward to hearing your statement, Dr. Lantos Swett. 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. Thank you so much. 

We have made a number of recommendations, but I do think 

probably the single most significant thing that could be done to 

make IRFA a more effective piece of legislation, make USCIRF and 

the IRFA office in the State Department more effective would, in 

fact, be for our government at the highest levels to prioritize this 

cause. 

And I will say that I do see a shifting attitude. I think it is becoming increasingly apparent to people at the highest levels of our 

government that, if we don’t get this piece right, we will not be 

able to solve our most intractable foreign policy and security challenges. If you overlay the list of Countries of Particular Concern 

with the list of countries of particular national security threat to 

the United States, it is shocking how closely those two lists mesh, 

for the most part. 

One thing that I think is already contemplated in IRFA that has 

not happened—and I think another member of the panel referred 

to this—is it calls for, for example, a director-level position at the 

National Security Council who could serve as the special advisor on 

the National Security Council on religious freedom issues. 

I think my most passionate argument would be that people need 

to stop thinking about religious freedom as a nice idea, something 

that reflects our values, something that it would make us feel good 

if people could, you know, sort of, practice their beliefs more freely 

in other parts of the world. When you have societies that repress, 

oppress, persecute on the basis of sectarianism and religion, you 

create the seedbed for extremism, for violence, for instability, and, 

ultimately, for the export of terrorism. We really have got to get 

this right. 

And I am so glad you brought that up about Jefferson because 

I think that was our secret sauce as a country. That was the piece 

we got right that was revolutionary at the time, unheard of in 

human history, this notion that the government shall make no law 

respecting an establishment of religion nor denying the free exercise thereof, this brilliant, simple formulation—protecting the right 

of freedom of religion and separating it from being intertwined 

with government. That is the basic deal right there, and it made 

all the difference in the way we developed as a nation. 

So we need higher-level engagement, we need this to become a 

priority at the State Department on the part of the administration 

and in the Congress. IRFA—there are things we can change there, 

but there is no magic bullet there. The magic bullet lies in raising 

its priority. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But that is a hard thing to do. You have to almost put it into the structure. 

94 

And I will join you and others in writing a letter to the State Department or the President that this position on the Security Council should be filled. 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. That would be great. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But what other things can we do to institutionalize this? It is one thing to say, raise the priority, but we know 

what government is like. You are under tremendous pressures, 

usually understaffed, and so you go to what you have to do. So you 

almost have to put a structure in place. 

What about special envoys? We use that all the time in international affairs, maybe special envoys to special regions on particular problems as we see it. If anybody would like to—— 

Ms. LANTOS SWETT. I am actually going to defer to Dr. Farr, who 

I often refer to as my tutor on religious freedom and really very 

knowledgeable—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is up now, so I request the chairman let 

him respond. 

Mr. FARR. Very, very briefly. 

Two things: We don’t need a special envoy. We have an ambassador-at-large. Nobody is in the position. Get it filled, and make 

this position report to the Secretary of State like other ambassadors-at-large. 

Secondly, I recommend in my testimony a Presidential policy directive on religious freedom and national security. The reality is we 

have nothing in our religious freedom policy to respond to what is 

going on in the Middle East now—nothing except speeches, words, 

and reports, in response to your question. 

We need a strategy that has action as part of it, but here I am 

not talking about just talking about strategies. A Presidential directive to develop a strategy on religious freedom and national security, that will put us in a position to do something. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I am now going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I want to go to Mr. Ogebe, who—I really want to talk about what 

is going on in Nigeria and Boko Haram. 

There was a lot of criticism for Secretary Clinton, for the State 

Department as a whole for not designating them as a foreign terrorist organization. From your perspective, why did that take so 

long? 

But then, once it was designated, what changed? Did it actually 

even make a difference or move the meter? And is it getting better, 

worse, or is it just the same? 

Mr. OGEBE. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, we, to this date, do not understand why the State Department dragged its feet with the FTO designation. We do know that 

there were individuals, 20 professors, that wrote to the State Department and said, don’t do it. We did write to them and provide 

briefs and facts showing why this should be done. 

One of the really difficult aspects for us was the fact that the 

State Department would not admit that Americans had been attacked by Boko Haram. 

Ultimately, they did the designation. But we do not know if they 

have had the political will to implement the sanctions required. We 

don’t know if they just did it to just wish us away. 

95 

I can give you a practical illustration of some of the things that 

have emerged which an FTO designation implementation would 

have showed. For example, there are reports that Turkish Airlines 

has been flying arms into Nigeria surreptitiously. Now, if we were 

aggressively tracking the flow of arms and finances, that is an organization that by now the State Department should have imposed 

sanctions on. 

So we do feel that the situation has worsened. Just this week, 

one Catholic diocese is reporting they have lost 2,500 members. 

That is one church losing the equivalent of 9/11—one diocese. 

So the situation is getting much worse, and we are now thinking 

there needs to be a look at the Leahy amendment to see how military assistance can be provided. Because Nigeria is a country that 

is too big to fail, to use those terms. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, to be clear, what would you have the United 

States do, from your perspective? What would you want them to 

do? 

Mr. OGEBE. Well, one of the first things would be to stop the denial. It is hard to believe that till this day officials continue to deny 

the serious killings of Christians that is going on. But I honestly 

think that if there is military assistance—last week, a top U.S. official said, you know, we need to end the denial and the pride. Nigeria is losing territory to these people. If she was genuine in her 

comments, then we need to look at military assistance so that these 

people can be stopped. They have taken over six cities in the last 

couple of weeks, and that is not a good sign for the entire subregion. 

So we do need to look at military assistance. If the Ambassador 

is appointed, that is one of the things that an ambassador can hit 

the ground running. He can intervene, he can engage with the Nigerian Government with the refugee situation in Cameroon and so 

on and so forth. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank you. 

Unless there are some other pressing questions, what I would 

like to do is thank this panel for their participation. I would have 

preferred to have just one panel, quite frankly, but we do have the 

person from the State Department, and we would like her to have 

time to testify. 

We would invite you to stay here and listen if you would like. 

But if it is okay with the committee, unless there is an objection, 

the committee is going to stand in recess for just a couple of minutes while we change the panel there. 

And we thank you so much for your dedication and commitment 

to this issue and your passion. And it is a very important issue, 

and we look forward to the continued dialogue with you. 

We will stand in recess for just a few minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CHAFFETZ.The committee will come to order. 

We are honored to have the Honorable Sarah Sewall. She is the 

Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human 

Rights at the Department of State. 

And we appreciate you being here. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn before 

they testify. So if you would please rise and raise your right hand. 

96 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Ms. SEWALL. I do. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. 

We again appreciate you being here. We are pretty generous on 

the timing of your verbal comments. If you have additional comments and testimony, I believe, which is a bit revised from what 

you first gave us, that is perfectly acceptable. That is fine, in this 

case. We will, obviously, make all of your written comments part 

of the record. And if you want to add something after the fact, we 

are happy to do that, as well. 

So we will now recognize you for 5 minutes. If you would just 

bring that microphone maybe straight there and make sure it is on. 

And you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SARAH SEWALL, UNDER SECRETARY FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND 

HUMAN RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. SEWALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Tierney—although I see he 

is not here, but I wish him a happy birthday in absentia—and 

members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear 

before you today to provide the details on how the Obama administration is promoting religious freedom worldwide. 

Today’s hearing couldn’t come at a more appropriate time because in too many corners of the globe religion is perverted by cynical forces as a tool of subjugation to justify violence, to expand 

power, and to advance parochial political agendas. There is no 

greater example of this terrifying reality than the metastasizing 

growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, and the 

terrorist group in Iraq and Syria. 

Countering violent extremism and promoting tolerance and 

human rights is a policy priority that cuts across many of the bureaus I lead as Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, 

and Human Rights and, indeed, the entire State Department. The 

most basic rights of freedom of expression in thought, conscious, 

and religion are at the core of our work, whether we are countering 

terrorism or preventing atrocities. 

The United States Government is appalled by the horrendous violence and violations of religious freedom and other rights in Iraq 

and Syria. As the President told the Nation last Wednesday, we 

cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient 

homelands. 

President Obama recognized the alarming nature of the violence 

by ISIL against the Yazidi community last month, saying that ISIL 

has called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yazidi people, which would constitute genocide. 

This threat, combined with the request from the Iraqi Government, prompted President Obama to authorize a humanitarian effort, reinforced by targeted air strikes, to help save those trapped 

on Mount Sinjar. Again, in Amirli, we airdropped food and water 

to Shia Turkmen, and we provided air support for Iraqi forces that 

97 

broke ISIL’s siege and prevented a humanitarian catastrophe. 

Going forward, the coalition mission and our actions in Iraq will 

continue to help protect vulnerable communities. 

Mr. Chairman, our efforts to combat ISIL and ensure the longterm safety of the religious communities now so threatened in the 

Middle East are led by the administration’s abiding commitment to 

advance freedom of religion and protect people at risk due to their 

faith. 

Mindful that we can never do enough, yet focused on how we can 

do more, this administration is seized by the pursuit of religious 

freedom as a central foreign policy and national security priority. 

In remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast this year, President 

Obama explained why, saying, ‘‘History shows that nations that 

uphold the rights of their people, including the freedom of religion, 

are ultimately more just and more peaceful and more successful. 

Nations that do not uphold these rights sow the bitter seeds of instability and violence and extremism. So freedom of religion matters to our national security.’’ 

The President’s commitment has been matched by that of Secretary of State John Kerry. And just last week in Baghdad, the 

Secretary urged the new Iraqi Government to protect and integrate 

members of religious minorities, saying that we are committed to 

working with the new government as long as they are committed 

to diversity, to inclusivity, as long as they are going to protect minorities in Iraq. 

My team, including the International Religious Freedom, IRF, office, has been directly engaged with those most targeted by the violence waged by ISIL. I have met with representatives of the Yazidi 

community in the United States a week after the Mount Sinjar attack, and just last week, I met again within an Iraqi human rights 

group advocating for religious minorities. 

The State Department is, in fact, in regular communication with 

representatives of these communities in Iraq and in the United 

States. And that interchange has been vital in protecting vulnerable groups and getting humanitarian assistance directly to displaced community members. 

The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, PRM, is 

working to ensure humanitarian relief is reaching those in need. 

And it has provided $171.8 million thus far in fiscal year 2014 for 

aid to Iraqis both inside Iraq and in the region. 

ISIL’s recent assault on northern and western Iraq is an extension of its brutal acts in Syria, where there have been reports of 

mass killings in Christian and Alawite villages, forced conversion 

at gunpoint, beheadings, kidnappings, and extreme abuse of 

women from all communities, including communities comprised of 

their fellow Sunni Muslims. 

In all of our engagements with Syrians, from Secretary Kerry 

down to the working level, we have consistently called upon all opposition parties to respect the rights of all Syrians, including the 

right to religious freedom, and to pursue a government and legal 

framework that protects these rights. Despite the challenges in realizing these goals, we have been heartened that the Syrian opposition coalition we have recognized has repeatedly and publicly denounced any affronts to religious freedom. 

98 

Sadly, religious freedom violations are not limited to the dire situation in Iraq and Syria. In nearly every region of the world, we 

can see limitations on the freedom of—on the exercise of religious 

freedom. In Pakistan, numerous religious minorities face high levels of violence and discrimination. Turkey refuses to recognize the 

Alevis’ houses of worship despite their 20 percent percentage of the 

population. And the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch continues to face restrictions, as well. 

Pew Forum statistics highlight that over 80 percent of the 

world’s population claims a religion, while over 70 percent of the 

global population lives in areas in which religious freedom is restricted. 

These statistics underscore the momentous step that the Congress took in 1998 when it passed landmark legislation, the International Religious Freedom Act, which sent a clear and strong signal that the universal right of religious freedom would be a priority 

of the United States’ foreign policy. We are deeply committed the 

our obligations under the IRF Act. We acknowledge the significant 

contributions toward implementation of the act that have been 

made by the United States Commission on International Religious 

Freedom. 

On July 28th, Secretary Kerry released the 2013 International 

Religious Freedom Report, which describes the status of religious 

freedom in every corner of the globe. And, at that time, he also announced his designations for Countries of Particular Concern. This 

valuable tool highlights the most egregious violations, and we use 

this tool, among the many others outlined in the act, to advance 

international religious freedom. And we press governments to stop 

violations when they happen, wherever they happen, and not only 

in countries of particular concern. 

Religious freedom, as well as the broader spectrum of human 

rights, remains a priority in U.S. foreign policy, and it is related 

more broadly to questions of governance and stability. Around the 

globe, in countries emerging from conflict or undergoing great 

change, like Burma and the Central African Republic, we find that 

fostering respect for religious freedom and a culture of tolerance is 

central to the creation of a just and lasting peace and a stable government. And this is a trend, I think, to which earlier witnesses 

testified. 

As created by the 1998 IRF Act, the Ambassador-at-Large for 

International Religious Freedom serves as the principal advisor to 

the Secretary of State and President on religious freedom. And, 

just last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a 

hearing to consider the nomination of Rabbi David Saperstein. I 

understand that Rabbi Saperstein has now been voted out of business committee. He has a long and distinguished career pressing 

for international religious freedom, and we are hopeful for his 

speedy confirmation so that his efforts and energies can join in the 

important work already ongoing within the Department. 

The challenges of religious freedom around the globe far exceed 

the efforts of any one person. They require broad cooperation both 

inside and outside of government. My colleagues and I work with 

colleagues throughout the Department, our missions overseas, and 

the White House to ensure that the government is working toVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 Dec 10, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91569.TXT APRIL
99 

gether to advance religious freedom overseas. While we can never 

do enough, we continue to strive to meet our obligations under the 

IRF Act in both letter and in spirit. 

We appreciate Congress’ support for international religious freedom, and we want to continue working closely with the legislative 

branch on our shared concerns and efforts to advance international 

religious freedom. I look forward to your questions and to our continued cooperation on this critical issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, thank you. And thank you for your participation. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Sewall follows:] 

100 


Insert offset folio 70 here 91569.070
101 


Insert offset folio 71 here 91569.071
102 


Insert offset folio 72 here 91569.072
103 


Insert offset folio 73 here 91569.073
104 


Insert offset folio 74 here 91569.074
105 


Insert offset folio 75 here 91569.075
106 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And we should refer to you as ‘‘Dr. Sewall.’’ We 

are going to change your nameplates out. And as long as I keep 

talking, the camera will probably stay on me and they won’t even 

notice it. But, again, we thank you for your expertise and your passion on this issue. 

We heard previous testimony from our panelists that some want 

to see more of a stick approach; there should be more consequences 

for those who that don’t participate in religious freedoms. And then 

we also heard from Mr. Smith, for instance, and others that said 

there ought to be some sort of incentives and rewards and some 

recognition for those that are actually moving in the right direction 

to encourage those types of behavior. 

What I see from afar is not much movement of the needle in the 

right direction. We hear some of the most horrific things you can 

possibly imagine—Boko Haram and what’s going on there. We 

want to do something that’s effective, that actually moves the needle. I think most Americans do care about this, and it does become 

the focal point of a lot of conflict around the world in which our 

men and women—you know, it gets to a much more serious level. 

So what, from your vantage point, actually works and that we 

need to do more of? What specifically do we need to do more of? 

Ms. SEWALL. Well, as a former Sunday school teacher, I can confess that I share that desire to make our values promotion in the 

context of religious freedom, in the context of a broader human 

rights commitment, to be realized in a very practical level around 

the globe. And so I think I would like to respond to your question 

in two different ways. 

You know, first, I think one of the very clear realizations that we 

have had in the context of the ongoing conflict in both Syria and 

Iraq—and they are not new revelations, but they are really crystallized in the form of ISIL’s rapid advance—is how central the 

question of religious freedom is to broader foreign policy questions 

and concerns that we have as a government. 

So I think one of the challenges for anyone who is passionately 

committed to the issue of religious freedom is to sometimes recognize where the issue is worked on with great fervor and commitment even if the leading tag on the issue isn’t religious freedom per 

se. In other words, I think we are hugely and deeply involved in 

promoting religious freedom in many aspects of our foreign policy 

that people don’t necessarily think of, first and foremost, as questions of religious freedom. And I think the ISIL frame, because of 

the brutality and the particular flavor of the evil that it perpetrates 

in the name of religion, has really raised that issue in a way that 

we haven’t perhaps appreciated before. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can you give me any example of something that 

we have done that has actually been effective—— 

Ms. SEWALL. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. —specific to this topic? 

Ms. SEWALL. So let me talk a little bit about some of the things 

that we have done that we think the United States can be extremely proud of. 

Active engagement by the administration in Armenia encouraged 

the passage of a law to protect conscientious objectors. That may 

sound like a small thing, but conscientious objectors in the past 

107 

were not allowed to have a status. And so that is a significant and 

precedential example of a concrete impact from engagement. It led 

to the release of 28 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the fall of 2013. 

We work with international partners to train law enforcement 

practitioners on tools to combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence on the basis of religion or beliefs using methods that ensure 

respect for freedoms of speech and assembly. Those have effects 

that we don’t necessarily track per se, but the training itself is very 

concrete, and it lives on in the commitment of those who carry it 

out. 

We have worked, for example, in the context of the current Egyptian Government, where the prosecution of a few perpetrators of violence against religious minorities has occurred, that is obviously 

an insufficient response to the broader question of religious freedom in Egypt. Nonetheless, it has an important deterrent effect, 

and it demonstrates support for communities that we have long 

recognized as besieged in the context of Egypt’s laws. 

Tunisia, the birthplace of the Arab uprising, is a great example, 

I think, of how democracy can foster robust debates about how 

countries uphold fundamental rights. And, again, the constitution 

that was ratified in 2014 is not perfect, but I think we can be— 

we must be mindful and grateful for the strides that it takes in the 

constitution for guaranteeing the liberty of conscious, belief, and 

worship. That is a significant change. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay. 

So this new position—I mean, it is bingo night over in the United 

States Senate, so who knows if we can get this person actually confirmed before they go into recess. It is good to see movement within 

the committee, but to have this position actually confirmed by the 

full United States Senate, I think we all share the concern that it 

takes way too long. 

What are you going to specifically do to make sure that the 

Rabbi is at the table and has a significant portfolio so that he can 

actually, you know, help move the ball forward? 

You know, part of the concern that we heard from the first panel 

is that, at least structurally on the organizational chart, he’s a little bit deeper into the bowels of the organization as opposed to a 

direct line of sight to the Secretary himself. So how do you deal 

with that, as somebody within your organization? 

Ms. SEWALL. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

try to answer it in two different ways. 

I mean, first, I think, in terms of the bowels of the bureaucracy, 

I would like to think of myself as having been bureaucracy-free for 

a good many years before I had the good fortune to be confirmed 

to join this administration. It is only through working within the 

State Department that I have come to appreciate the centrality 

that the bureaus themselves play in ensuring that the issues that 

they represent are folded across the entire State Department’s 

work. In other words, I have come to believe and see in my daily 

practice the advantage of being inside a bureau. 

So, for example, whoever is the Ambassador-at-Large will have 

limits on his or her attention. What the Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor can do is ensure that that person and 

that staff is integrated into the panoply of issues, whether they are 

108 

the questions of government reform in Tunisia or in Iraq or whether they are bilateral engagements with China or elsewhere. The 

reach of the Ambassador-at-Large is vastly magnified by being 

within DRL. 

And I have seen that in its manifestation. A great example of 

that, Mr. Chairman, would be the role that the Office of Religious 

Freedom was able to play in bringing information from the Yazidi 

community directly to the planners who were working on the military support, both the humanitarian support and the air strikes, 

and the ability to lash up that expertise and specialized knowledge 

within the realm of a larger bureau that was centrally engaged in 

a broader range of issues and then particularly manifest in the context of the conduct of the war. 

So I think it was a great example of how being within a bureau 

can magnify the impact of the Ambassador-at-Large. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, there is deep concern from a number of people to make sure that this position is fully implemented. I appreciate your commitment there. I don’t doubt it. This position will be 

a newly filled position since you have had your confirmation. So I 

want to offer as much encouragement as we can to make sure that 

this person hopefully will get Senate confirmation sooner rather 

than later and that they are fully integrated and have a place of 

prominence. 

I do think the points that were made earlier, that so many of our 

Nation’s conflicts are still rooted in some of the basic prohibitions 

that a lot of people have on the practice of religion, some of this 

dates back thousands of years. And they are difficult, emotional 

issues, but I think it is important to the United States of America. 

It is part of our success. And we want to make sure that it is given 

the full weight and measure. 

But I think we now will recognize the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. And I apologize. I came in late. I was 

delayed. But I certainly commend the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing. 

And it is an important hearing. I think everyone looks to the 

United States for leadership, particularly on moral issues. And we 

have sort of tried to set the pattern throughout our history as a 

Nation that would protect human rights. 

You have an important position. How many people work with 

you in your office? Your title is Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, Dr. Sewall? 

Ms. SEWALL. My front office—— 

Mr. MICA. Can’t hear you. 

Ms. SEWALL. Excuse me. I am sorry, Congressman. 

My front office has, I believe, about 20 people. And the bureaus 

that live within the J Under Secretariat, in cumulative total, number roughly 2,000. 

Mr. MICA. Two thousand people work within—— 

Ms. SEWALL. Across seven bureaus and offices. 

Mr. MICA. —working to protect civilian security, democracy—— 

Ms. SEWALL. We do counterterrorism work, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SEWALL. We do security sector reform. 

109 

Mr. MICA. I see. Like, civilian security is—— 

Ms. SEWALL. We do counterterrorism. 

Mr. MICA. Is that like—I mean, we just lost two journalists, Mr. 

Foley and Mr. Sotloff. Would you be involved in those kind of cases 

too? They were held as hostages and slaughtered. 

Ms. SEWALL. The Bureau of Counterterrorism is part of my mandate as the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, 

and—— 

Mr. MICA. So the 2,000 people that you oversee in that office 

have some of that responsibility. 

And then we are trying to get this nomination of Rabbi 

Saperstein to serve as the State Department’s next Ambassador-atLarge for Religious Freedom. Now, has that position—how long has 

that position been vacant? 

Ms. SEWALL. I believe it has been vacant for almost a year. We 

are very excited about the nomination of Rabbi Saperstein—— 

Mr. MICA. Now, does he report to you or someone else? 

Ms. SEWALL. One of his first visits, I believe, was to my office, 

where he said, I need to know how important this issue is. And he 

was very vociferous in his desire to—— 

Mr. MICA. But he would report to you. Is there another—— 

Ms. SEWALL. He reports—his office is based within the Bureau 

of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. He will—— 

Mr. MICA. Is there another Secretary or a Deputy Secretary position—— 

Ms. SEWALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. —between you and him? 

Ms. SEWALL. He will be reporting to the Assistant Secretary for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Ms. SEWALL. He, of course, will be able to report directly to the 

Secretary with any information, updates, or questions that he 

might have. So he will be—— 

Mr. MICA. So you would prepare protests, or you would—in cases 

where, like, civilians like Foley and Sotloff were slaughtered, do 

you prepare any human rights violation protests with—I guess, 

would that be directed, where people say—we had a witness from 

the—was it Nigeria?— who spoke of the slaughter of Christians 

there. 

If there are instances where these violations are egregious— 

slaughter of innocent people because of their religion, or innocent 

civilians—you protest where? Is it the United Nations Human 

Rights Council? 

Ms. SEWALL. Sir, our policy towards Nigeria has multiple dimensions, and many of the offices within my Under Secretariat, as well 

as the regional—— 

Mr. MICA. I know, but I think one of the witnesses said there 

was more slaughter of Christians in Nigeria than all the other instances. 

Ms. SEWALL. Yeah, I was surprised by that number. I will need 

to investigate that. 

Mr. MICA. But I would be surprised if you were surprised—— 

Ms. SEWALL. Yeah. 

Mr. MICA. —because you are in charge of that. 

110 

Ms. SEWALL. Right. It might not be accurate. So we just need to 

investigate it. 

Mr. MICA. Well, it sounds like a lot. But—— 

Ms. SEWALL. It is a lot. 

Mr. MICA. But what I—— 

Ms. SEWALL. The slaughter by Boko Haram is horrific. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. And my question is, you have a position—you just 

said you have 2,000 people that work for you. And we have some 

way to engage at the international community. Have we forwarded 

a protest from your department or the State Department or the 

United States within either the—I guess it’s the Human Rights 

Council of the United Nations? Have we done anything? 

Ms. SEWALL. I would have to investigate whether we—— 

Mr. MICA. You don’t know whether we—— 

Ms. SEWALL. I don’t want to misspeak, Congressman. 

Mr. MICA. I mean, I find it astounding because—— 

Ms. SEWALL. I have taken an oath, so I need to be very careful. 

Mr. MICA. —I think that—yeah. I think that you should be 

aware, particularly where there is the slaughter of innocent civilians, be it media people or people for religious freedom, of what actions we are taking to—— 

Ms. SEWALL. Sure. I would love to explain them to you. 

Mr. MICA. Now, ISIS or ISIL might be a more difficult entity to 

come after because it is not a defined state, but certainly Nigeria 

is. 

Ms. SEWALL. Uh-huh. Would you like to know what we have 

done on behalf of our efforts against Boko Haram in Nigeria? 

Mr. MICA. From you now, yes. 

Ms. SEWALL. I could explain because I have been to Nigeria to 

raise these issues—— 

Mr. MICA. No, but it’s not there too. It’s also—to bring this to 

world attention—this is the Department of State witness, Mr. 

Chairman, isn’t it?—we deal in these international bodies; we lodge 

protests. And someone in the State Department, the Secretary or 

someone, has to initiate an action in a body, and that’s our—we 

deal with other states. 

So my question is, what have we done—— 

Ms. SEWALL. We talk to other states repeatedly—— 

Mr. MICA. But we have not lodged anything or initiated—— 

Ms. SEWALL. I can repeat my answer. I will need to check and 

find out whether or not we have lodged—— 

Mr. MICA. Again, I found it astounding, Mr. Chairman, that a 

witness could come before us on an issue like that and not know 

if we have even lodged a protest in the appropriate international 

body. 

If there is some other international body you’ve protested to or 

taken action to, I would like to know. 

For the record, maybe she could submit it. Thank you. 

Ms. SEWALL. I would be happy to. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking 

member, Mr. Tierney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Dr. Sewall. And thank you for your 

good wishes earlier on in your testimony. 

111 

I understand that you are not the person that would be making 

any objections to international bodies and others. It is probably left 

to the Secretary, on that basis. But please tell us what you have 

done, particularly with respect to Boko Haram, and what actions 

you took in your position and capacity. 

Ms. SEWALL. Thank you. 

Well, it is a team effort because the President has spoken directly to the President about his concern and ways in which we can 

help them defeat this scourge. We have been leaders with some of 

our closest NATO allies in trying to build a global coalition—or, 

sorry, a regional coalition to defeat Boko Haram. We have had numerous regional meetings where we have sought to encourage the 

neighbors to increase their military activity as well as their information-sharing. 

We have made significant inroads in helping the Nigerian government understand their need to be more responsive, not simply 

on a military level but also in the context of addressing some of the 

grievances that exist in the northeast. 

This is an issue that has been on the U.S. diplomatic radar 

screen and has been the focus of a wide range of meetings in different European capitals, in Nigeria. We have been sounding the 

alarm about Boko Haram. We have condemned its violence against 

all Nigerians—Christians but also Muslims. 

And I think, you know, the First Lady’s concern with the behavior of Boko Haram has been a great example of American values 

and engagement at work. And the notion that we have not been 

significantly—and our example of highlighting the abuses of 

Shekau’s really brutal campaign against all Nigerians has been 

front and center in our Nigeria policy and our engagement with allies and with others to try to highlight the difficulties that exist 

there now. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I think you started to indicate that you personally 

had taken a trip to Nigeria on that basis. 

Ms. SEWALL. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Would you relate to us what your impressions are 

of the responsiveness that you were getting from Nigerian officials 

when you make a presentation? 

Ms. SEWALL. Thank you for that question. 

I went—I would have to check on the date. I believe it was about 

2 months ago, when I went as part of a delegation. We were, at 

the time, concerned—and I testified before the House—to convey 

our concern about the Nigerian Government’s recognition of the 

fundamental violations of human rights in northeast Nigeria and, 

in particular, their failure to mobilize effectively to confront the 

military threat of Boko Haram. 

I can tell you that a more recent delegation, which included my 

colleague at the State Department, Assistant Secretary Linda 

Thomas-Greenfield, just returned from Nigeria, where they reported that the Nigerian Government, while now extremely concerned, has yet to be able to take effective action. And so we are 

in discussion now within the government about ways in which we 

might further encourage action both by Nigeria and by its neighbors because the situation is extremely dire. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Do you think that Nigeria has the capacity—— 

112 

Ms. SEWALL. I am concerned that Nigeria does not have the capacity, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Is there anything else you want to add in terms of Nigeria and 

where you think we ought to go? 

Ms. SEWALL. No—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. To help build that capacity, for instance. 

Ms. SEWALL. Well, there is a host of challenges in trying to work 

with Nigeria, not the least being—and this relates to the broader 

point that I was trying to make about how mainstream questions 

of religious tolerance are. Because they are part of a question of 

governance and whether or not a government is responsive to its 

people and protects all of its human rights, to include the freedom 

of religion. 

I think that the protection of rights in the northeast or the attention to rights in the northeast has not been what it was. And that, 

in turn, allows for—creates conditions in which it is easier for extremism of other forms to thrive. 

And so, as we look to promote religious freedom, we can do so 

with the confidence that when we advocate our values overseas to 

foreign governments we are actually advocating something that is, 

even though they may not see it in the short term, very much in 

their long-term interest, which is to promote tolerance and freedom 

and human rights as a state so that they can hope to enjoy greater 

stability within the state. 

And it is a theme that we see not just in Nigeria. We see it also 

in Iraq and Syria. We see it in many places around the globe. 

And the fact that the United States is consistently raising freedom of region and human rights in its engagements bilaterally, 

even with countries with whom we fundamentally disagree on a 

number of issues, I think, speaks to its centrality in U.S. foreign 

policy and the fact that, while Rabbi David Saperstein will be an 

enormous boost and we all hope for his speedy confirmation—and 

I, for one, am really looking forward to having him join the team 

in the State Department—this is work that goes on every day by 

many officials within the Department, and it is truly a central element of our foreign policy today. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Doctor. 

Yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Just a few more questions as we wrap up. 

You would acknowledge that Christians, at least at this time, are 

the most persecuted group around the world; is that your belief? 

Ms. SEWALL. I think Christians are extremely persecuted around 

the world. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you not agree that they are the most persecuted at this point? 

Ms. SEWALL. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, so it is 

hard for me to say that as a statistical matter. But I am completely 

open to getting back to you with the numbers on that question, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When would you get back to us with those numbers? 

Ms. SEWALL. If the numbers exist, I will be back to you later this 

afternoon. 

113 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay. I would hope that, at your level of your expertise—and you’ve got a number of things you’re responsible for— 

that you would have those at your fingertips at any given time. 

Ms. SEWALL. But, sir, I don’t need the numbers to know that the 

persecution of Christians is wrong and should be an American foreign policy priority, as the persecution of all religious minorities is. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would agree that all—what I don’t see is any 

success. 

Ms. SEWALL. Well, I could—could I continue on that for a—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. There are a host of materials and information 

and third-party groups and we just heard testimony from a whole 

host of people who’ve made, I think, a very solid point that what 

is happening or not happening in the State Department, it isn’t 

working. 

Ms. SEWALL. Well, I don’t disagree. And I said in my testimony 

that we can never do enough to guarantee religious freedom any 

more than any other human right around the world. It is an uphill 

climb, but we are committed. 

And I think you would be really interested in at least this set 

of facts. In the last few years, at least 100 people imprisoned for 

their faith have been released following USG advocacy in eight 

countries in the Middle East, South and Central Asia, East Asia, 

and Africa. It is not an exhaustive list, but I know that we all long 

for some quantitative measure of impact, and I can at least with 

confidence give you that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I appreciate that. I look forward to having 

that and seeing that. I would also hope that you would be receptive 

to some of the other very worthwhile, credible outside groups who 

have done a host of this work and listen to their perspective, as 

well. 

Let me ask you about one of the policy recommendations. And it 

seems simple to me that there would be or should be an annual 

designation. Is that something that off the top of your head is objectionable, to annually try to evaluate and make some sort of designation? Is there any reason not to do that? 

Ms. SEWALL. When I have asked the office about that issue, I get 

a very interesting answer, which is that they are constantly reviewing for designation. There is no minimum requirement or maximum requirement; they are constantly in that process. 

And so I think that, as facts on the ground change and as the 

reviews continue, my understanding is that that is the basis on 

which they then designate, that it is not—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So it would be relatively easy, if the Congress 

were to request something to just compile, that what seems to be 

constantly in motion, to have some sort of date or whatnot, that we 

could get this annual designation. Is that fair? 

Ms. SEWALL. I’m sorry, could you repeat the question? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So if Congress were to designate a date by which 

we try to do some sort of annual report, that that shouldn’t be extraordinary in terms of effort and something—if it’s constantly in 

motion, to just simply take a snapshot in time. 

Ms. SEWALL. Well, as you know, the administration has many reports that it is required to report. So—— 

114 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, my understanding is that this year’s designations were the first one—at least the staff is telling me, this 

year’s were the first since 2011. So they are sporadic at best. And 

we will explore this with you. If there’s other reasons, something 

that we’re not thinking of, I’d appreciate it if you’d share that with 

us. 

But it seems like a simple request. It would give us a good snapshot. It would remind us, and I think it would be important, that— 

as was pointed out, the last thing you want to do is designate a 

country as somewhat problematic and not have them have the ability to climb off that list. 

And it should be just, in my personal opinion, much more than 

a list. There needs to be some sort of consequence. There needs to 

be some sort of reward, some sort of reason to, you know, move in 

the right direction. I guess that’s the point. 

I have a host of other questions, but in the absence of what we’re 

doing here and the time, I guess my last comment would be: We 

would certainly appreciate it in the future if we could have your 

participation, and other people in the State Department, on one 

panel rather than two panels. The opportunity to just share in the 

spirit of cooperation and understanding, that we have one panel to 

share these things back and forth, I think we would find that we 

would be very bipartisan. And we may get to the point where we 

have to insist on that, but I’d appreciate your consideration to be 

able to have that on the one panel. It would be a better use of the 

Congress’ time, I think a better use of your time. And we would 

ultimately come up with a better product. And I’d appreciate—— 

Ms. SEWALL. I suspect I’m entering a long—a long history with 

regard to that issue. And—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It has been back and forth. And I think we are 

going to have to be more insistent in making sure that we have 

productive panels and that we have the good, candid dialogue. 

I know you are committed to what you do and your passion in 

what you do. You are very accomplished in your background. I appreciate the type of talent and thought that you bring to this. 

It is, obviously, a concern of ours that the religious liberties, religious freedoms become an integral part of the State Department’s 

efforts in all of our foreign policy. It is very important. It should 

not be delegated to just one of those other things we need to check 

the box on. And that’s, I think, the impression that we’re trying to 

leave with you and with others. 

And I appreciate the good men and women who do work on this 

issue within the State Department and those in the outside groups 

who care passionately about these issues. And we thank all of you 

for your participation today. I think we learned a lot from this, and 

we’ve got to make sure that we actually act upon it. 

So, with that, we will stand adjourned. Thank you. 

Ms. SEWALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ